Cited by 24Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

UCancellation: A new mobile measure of selective attention and concentration

Open access
Pahor, Anja, Mester, Randy E., Carrillo, Audrey A., Ghil, Eunice, Reimer, Jason F., Jaeggi, Susanne M., Seitz, Aaron R.·2022·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

Measuring selective attention in a speeded task can provide valuable insight into the concentration ability of an individual, and can inform neuropsychological assessment of attention in aging, traumatic brain injury, and in various psychiatric disorders. There are only a few tools to measure selective attention that are freely available, psychometrically validated, and can be used flexibly both for in-person and remote assessment. To address this gap, we developed a self-administrable, mobile-based test called "UCancellation" (University of California Cancellation), which was designed to assess selective attention and concentration and has two stimulus sets: Letters and Pictures. UCancellation takes less than 7 minutes to complete, is automatically scored, has multiple forms to allow repeated testing, and is compatible with a variety of iOS and Android devices. Here we report the results of a study that examined parallel-test reliability and convergent validity of UCancellation in a sample of 104 college students. UCancellation Letters and Pictures showed adequate parallel test reliability (r = .71-.83, p < 0.01) and internal consistency (ɑ = .73-.91). It also showed convergent validity with another widely used cancellation task, d2 Test of Attention (r = .43-.59, p < 0.01), and predicted performance on a cognitive control composite (r = .34-.41, p < 0.05). These results suggest that UCancellation is a valid test of selective attention and inhibitory control, which warrants further data collection to establish norms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13428-021-01765-5

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • UCancellation is a timed selective-attention and concentration measure with validation against the D2 Test of Attention.

    “A timed test of selective attention and concentration that has been validated against the D2 Test of Attention108,109.”
  • The Selective Attention task (SAtt) is designed to evaluate selective spatial attention.

    “Selective attention task (SAtt). This is designed to evaluate selective spatial attention (Serences & Kastner, 2014; Pahor et al., 2022).”

    From Does Spatial Cognition Emerge in Frontier Models? (2024) · cites this paper as Pahor et al., 2022

    The Introduction describes cancellation tasks as measures of selective and sustained attention, but it does not identify a task called SAtt or say that SAtt evaluates selective spatial attention. Searches for “SAtt” and “selective spatial attention” found no passage addressing that specific task; the Methods > Measures section describes other tasks instead. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Selective attention task (SAtt) is a test of selective spatial attention, the ability to selectively attend to a particular region of space while ignoring others.

    “This is a test of selective spatial attention, i.e., the ability to selectively attend to a particular region of space while ignoring others (Serences & Kastner, 2014; Pahor et al., 2022).”

    From Does Spatial Cognition Emerge in Frontier Models? (2024) · cites this paper as Pahor et al., 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pahor, A., Mester, R. E., Carrillo, A. A., Ghil, E., Reimer, J. F., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • California State University, San Bernardino (US)
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2022-02-01
Volume
54
Issue
5
Pages
2602-2617
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W4210676304
Cited by
23
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (K02AG054665)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH111742)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
selective attention, concentration, mobile cognitive assessment, cancellation task, inhibitory control, cognitive control, D2 attention test, convergent validity, self-administered tests, remote neuropsychological assessment, aging, traumatic brain injury, mental illness
MeSH terms
Aging, Attention, Cognition, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review